MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171608016 · doi:10.1093/jac/dkt022

Antimicrobial susceptibility of 22746 pathogens from Canadian hospitals: results of the CANWARD 2007-11 study

2013· article· en· W2171608016 on OpenAlexaffabout
George G. Zhanel, Heather J. Adam, Melanie Baxter, J Fuller, Kimberly A. Nichol, Andrew Denisuik, Philippe Lagacé‐Wiens, Andrew Walkty, James A. Karlowsky, Frank Schweizer, D. J. Hoban

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalAlberta Hospital EdmontonShared HealthUniversity of ManitobaHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTigecyclineTrimethoprimMeropenemSulfamethoxazoleMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusErtapenemLinezolidColistinBroth microdilutionPiperacillinClindamycinAntimicrobialMicrobiologyAmikacinTazobactamCiprofloxacinVancomycinStaphylococcus aureusAntibioticsPseudomonas aeruginosaAntibiotic resistanceImipenemBiologyMinimum inhibitory concentration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the CANWARD study was to assess the antimicrobial activity of a variety of available agents against 22,746 pathogens isolated from patients in Canadian hospitals between 2007 and 2011. METHODS: Between 2007 and 2011, 27,123 pathogens were collected from tertiary-care centres from across Canada; 22,746 underwent antimicrobial susceptibility testing using CLSI broth microdilution methods. Patient demographic data were also collected. RESULTS: Of the isolates collected, 45.2%, 29.6%, 14.8% and 10.4% were from blood, respiratory, urine and wound specimens, respectively. Patient demographics were as follows: 54.4%/45.6% male/female, 12.8% ≤ 17 years old, 45.1% 18-64 years old and 42.1% ≥65 years old. Isolates were obtained from patients in medical and surgical wards (37.8%), emergency rooms (25.7%), clinics (18.0%) and intensive care units (18.5%). The three most common pathogens were Escherichia coli (20.1%), Staphylococcus aureus [methicillin-susceptible S. aureus and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA)] (20.0%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (8.0%), which together accounted for nearly half of the isolates obtained. Susceptibility rates (SRs) for E. coli were 100% meropenem, 99.9% tigecycline, 99.7% ertapenem, 97.7% piperacillin/tazobactam, 93.7% ceftriaxone, 90.5% gentamicin, 77.9% ciprofloxacin and 73.4% trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. Twenty-three percent of the S. aureus were MRSA. SRs for MRSA were 100% daptomycin, 100% linezolid, 100% telavancin, 99.9% vancomycin, 99.8% tigecycline, 92.2% trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and 48.2% clindamycin. SRs for P. aeruginosa were 90.1% amikacin, 93.1% colistin, 84.0% piperacillin/tazobactam, 83.5% ceftazidime, 82.6% meropenem, 72.0% gentamicin and 71.9% ciprofloxacin. CONCLUSIONS: The CANWARD surveillance study has provided important data on the antimicrobial susceptibility of pathogens commonly causing infections in Canadian hospitals.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations150
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Antimicrobial ChemotherapySame topicBacterial Identification and Susceptibility TestingFrench-language works237,207